Search Results for: node/unpossible

SSCC 128 – TSA

Here’s yet another unpossible, inconceivable addition from our infallible overlords at the TSA.

A Transportation Security Administration security officer is out on bail after he was arrested and charged with child pornography.

Remember, this is by no means the first time and it most certainly won’t be the last. The claims that they thoroughly screen their agents are yet again proved false.

State Sponsored Criminal Count: 128 – Michael Scott Wilson

Because the real reason for the TSA is to acclimate our children and provide compliant victims under color of law for sexual predators.  It’s a security theater, it has nothing to do with security.

SSCC #261–Houston Texas

A drunk off-duty policeman shot two sober brothers in a bar parking lot, one fatally, as they “were coming to the rescue of a young woman” a drunk patron had punched in the face, the widow claims in Harris County Court.

Unpossible, an anointed one drinking while carrying a pistol, the gun grabbers constantly claim that they are the only one’s responsible enough to carry a firearm.  I’ve drilled into this problem before.

Go read the story.  A couple good Samaritans stepped in to stop a criminal and prevent a woman from being further assaulted.  This drunk police officer not knowing what was going on just shot the two  good Samaritans. 

Nothing has been done to the officer, and the officer was protected in this situation.

The family says Coronado was following “conflicting city policies” when he shot the brothers, “one policy requiring him to carry a firearm and intervene in all conflicts, and another policy prohibiting him from carrying his firearm and intervening after drinking.”

State Sponsored Criminal Count 261: Officer Jose Coronado

Because drinking to excess and carrying a firearm is only a problem if you’re a lowly civilian.  If you’re a law enforcement officer it’s just another way to commit murder and get away with it.

via Robert Lake

Seattle PD is Out for a Record*

I got another email from Ry this morning.  At this point I firmly believe that Seattle has to be out for some sort of record for most consecutive days in the press.  This doesn’t make the full count as it wasn’t a police officer who committed the crime, but the police stood off to the side.

The man is Michael Lionnel Edwards, also known as Charles Edwards.
According to court documents, Edwards is a member of the Vice Lords gang
and his victims are littered across several states. His criminal
history includes robbery with serious bodily harm in Indiana, assault in
Minnesota, and aggravated assault in North Dakota.

So here we have a known felon with a history so thick that officers would easily see the danger he is.  The woman, while undergoing cancer treatment let this monster in her house as he claimed that he would help her.  All that did was give the wolf entry and her hell soon began.

Instead, Cindy says Edwards took over her life, even changing her locks,
so he could lock her inside. Then, in September of 2010, she was
recovering from surgery when Edwards came home drunk. “He had been
putting a gun in my face.”

When Edwards passed out a girlfriend
warned her, “you can’t come back here, he is going to kill you. When he
comes to he is going to kill you.”

What does she do?  She goes to the police like the media and the state keep telling us to do.  The better to protect us they claim.  They tell her to call 911 and they dispatch officers to the apartment.  Upon arrival at the apartment and discovering he is still there they decided to stand down and leave him be.  A known violent felon who threatened a woman, we’re not going to arrest him.  Now remember the role of the police is to investigate your murder, not protect you.  That said at this point he was breaking the law trespassing as the home owner didn’t want him there anymore.

Instead of removing him from the residence, here’s what happened to the resident.

For the next ten days Cindy, still recovering from surgery, was homeless.

“It was terrible. I had gone there, I had talked to them, I had done everything they had asked me to,” she said. 

Cindy was stuck on the street, living in her car with her dog until Edwards was eventually arrested and convicted.

The department claims if they handle a domestic incident incorrectly there will be a corrective action.  Many of the officers felt personally that the incident was not handled correctly.  The corrective action?

But the Office of Professional Accountability recommended no discipline,
only supervisory intervention. Department command staff overruled,
saying the commander should have used special units like SWAT to arrest
Edwards, rather than leave Cindy homeless.

See those black suited ninjas, they don’t use those in actual dangerous situations.  They just either call in to the criminal and talk him out or just walk off to arrest him later.  The only time any department uses a swat team is for a non-violent offender to harass, intimidate, and kill those who have committed victimless crimes.

Let this be a serious warning to those who would think of letting a stranger into your house.  We often want to believe that people are inherently good however there are wolves out there and you cannot tell who it is you’re letting in your house.  This woman took a promise to help with the bills as a sign of good intentions, sadly it resulted her arrival in hell.

That said, this seems like a classic case of what the police are there for.  Someone was threatening another person, the threats were not idle, and then they were trespassing after the fact.  It was a classic domestic incident given the use of a weapon, which as a felon that’s unpossible, and the police showed up, saw he was there, turned around and left.  The end result was to leave a woman recovering from surgery homeless while letting the armed felon roam free.

So this begs the question, why do we have SWAT teams?  If they aren’t willing to deploy them for incidents such as this why have them?  Are they just trained to kick down the door of a house of the innocent and kill anyone inside?  Are they just trained to shoot the dogs who are in a kennel?

This is a classic demonstration of two principal issues:

  1. You cannot depend on the state for anything.
  2. The armed militarization of the police has nothing to do with catching armed and dangerous criminals.

Remember both those points and draw from it what you will.

*The record comment originated with pyrotek85.

Who Needs the 4th Amendment…

Leahy’s rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — to access Americans’ e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge. (CNET obtained the revised draft from a source involved in the negotiations with Leahy.)

Unpossible I say, a politician rewriting a bill to be counter to the interests of Americans after debuting it as being to their benefit?  It’s like they know the public doesn’t want this but it’s the only way they can pull it off.

Who needs the 4th amendment, am I right?  They’re not even trying to be overt about this anymore.  Can someone please explain to me why the government needs this kind of power.  How is it that the act of informing a judge and getting a warrant to express probable cause for the invasion of privacy is necessary is a hindrance?

Oh, that’s right, it’s a hindrance to finding undesirables to be weeded out of the population. While anyone with half a brain should know not to expect those things to be private, which is why I’m not a big fan of the cloud, it seems a far stretch the government cannot first obtain a warrant.

Contact your legislator now and start raising hell.  Just to illustrate the double standard of this, I’m reasonably sure it’s safe elected officials will be exempt and still require a warrant. Laws for thee not for me.  If these elected representatives want this, they need to make their services public for all to see… They’ve got nothing to hide right?  At least that’s what they keep telling us.